Whenever a gay Mormon hits the media spotlight, I follow their story. Why? Because each story unfolds differently and reminds me that what we all want from life is a good life. (Another reason is I feel more and more relieved as I see attitudes and understanding change: Mormon families are becoming more and more accepting and the LDS church is becoming less and less harsh.) Recently, Jimmy Hales (the gay Mormon who hit the spotlight after filming himself coming out) shared this song, and the song took me down memory lane.

People who haven’t asked questions about how I got to where I am might assume I got to where I am because I fornicated and lost touch with God, or that I drank alcohol, or that I drank coffee, or that I had some secret party life I didn’t tell anyone about. Hopefully, this blog post will shed light on what actually happened. (And I’ll add a similar warning that this is the path I chose that was right for me and may not be right for everyone).

“I never thought this would be my story.”

When I took Russian courses and the topic of gay marriage came up, I never thought I’d be walking down the streets of Alexandria with a classmate and my husband.

When I back packed across Europe with a friend from the mission, I never thought I’d be walking the Freedom Trail in Boston with her and my husband.

When I walked the streets of Estonia with a mission companion, I never thought I’d attend a soccer game with him and my fiancé.

“However we go, we’ll hear ‘this is wrong’”

When I was alone with my religious beliefs, I heard it was wrong just to be me.

When I found people who were like me, they said it was wrong to be around gays.

“I’m used to being pushed away, so I’m not used to this… Sitting here we both feel this is actually real, not a fantasy.”

My religion taught me that when I fell in love, my life would be full of darkness and I’d get AIDS and die (slight exaggeration, but you get the point). What actually happened was I was full of happiness, and my family noticed. Not to be too gay about it, but this is what it was like:

That video clip is the opposite of an exaggeration (an underexageration?). I had never understood love songs. I had never understood gooshy movies. I didn’t understand what the big deal was. And that all changed in an instant and ushered in new questions, one of which was: If Mormons were wrong about love, are they wrong about other things too?

I’m not suggesting anyone question their faith in the Mormon church. I am suggesting that being a gay Mormon is a challenging and complex situation that isn’t understood well enough right now. In short, I agree with Jimmy:

“This needs to change; we need your help, even if sympathy is all you can offer.”

thatmormonboy recently uploaded a video to YouTube and asserted 12 points about the LDS Church in order to build bridges between gays and Mormons (see the Church’s website www.mormonsandgays.org for more detailed info on what the LDS Church teaches). I want to comment on many of the points thatmormonboy made, starting with the last point. And the reason I want to comment is because the points he makes are more nuanced than he presents, and much of the miscommunication relates to the nuanced points he doesn’t address: Church doctrine assumes one position and members of the Church can assume other positions.

The purpose of my commentary on the subject is to add my unique perspective as a former member of the LDS Church, gay man, and behavior analyst. My comments shouldn’t be considered exhaustive, but I want to put info out there. Specifically, I want to provide a few additional references on the topic that are often overlooked, discuss clinical limitations that are often misunderstood, and offer a few questions we should be asking to help guide our current understanding and communication on the topic.

thatmormonboy on gays and Mormons and the use of electroshock aversion therapy

So, let’s take a look at the last point thatmormonboy made about gays and Mormons. Here we go.

#12 “…the Mormon Church used to torture gay people like Nazi experimenters by electrocuting them and trying to reorient them as heterosexuals. (This a completely wild exaggeration of what happened).”

As thatmormonboy said, this is a completely wild exaggeration of what happened. I’m not sure why he started with the wildest of exaggerations, but it makes for a decent transition to the history of ethical conduct in research:

The National Research Act gave rise to institutional review boards (IRB) “to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in a research study”

So, much of the research on aversion therapies was happening around the time ethical treatment of human subjects was a major concern worldwide and a developing area, which leads to the next point thatmormonboy made:

“The medical community believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. BYU allowed the practice [of aversion therapy] for a short time and abandoned the practice decades before the APA did.”

Some clarification is in order. The APA came out with an official statement in 2006 that aversion therapy is not to be used to treat homosexuality. This is not the time the practice of aversion therapy slowed. Using Google Scholar, I searched “aversion therapy electroshock homosexuality” by year from 1974 to 1980. Around 1978, publications shifted from implementation of electroshock aversion therapy to discussing ethical implications of the therapy, and by 1980 there are no publications on the use of the therapy to treat homosexuality and only a few publications about the use of the therapy to treat pedophilia. So, I think it’s safe to assume the use of electroshock aversion therapy to treat homosexuality was generally considered unethical by 1980. Like thatmormonboy mentioned, aversion therapy was practiced on gay individuals because homosexuality was considered a disorder in the DSM. It was reclassified as “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1974 and completely removed from the DSM in 1987.

So, what did BYU do regarding aversion therapy and homosexuality? Max Ford McBride, under the direction of Dr. Eugene Thorne, completed his dissertation at BYU in 1976 and studied the effect of electroshock aversion therapy on male arousal to different stimuli (e.g., nude images of men women). A copy of his dissertation is available here. This is the only “publication” I’m aware of. Additional information about the procedures are discussed here in an interview with Dr. Thorne.

a link to Max Ford McBride’s dissertation at BYU on electric or electroshock aversion therapy back in 1976

The major points I’d like to drive home about this research are:

The research was conducted at a time when ethical considerations were important

McBride cited other, less aversive methods investigated to examine the same variables

“…the subject was deprived of liquids for 18 hours, sodium chloride and an oral diuretic was also given. When the subject exhibited appropriate heterosexual responses he was reinforced with a lime drink. Intake of liquid was contingent on heterosexual fantasies and/or progressively greater increases in penile circumference.”

“…a female slide was superimposed on a sexually attractive male slide with a fraction of the light intensity of the male picture… If a satisfactory erectile response occurred the light intensity of each slide was altered, the female slide becoming increasingly brighter until the female slide alone was projected.”

To summarize, these studies, including McBride’s, were extremely limited, and the limitations can be summarized with the following:

(1) increases in penile circumference were limited to stimuli presented in the studies,

(2) no follow ups were conducted to determine the extent to which penile responses generalized to novel stimuli (e.g., actual female genitalia),

(3) maintenance of the effect over extended periods of time was not demonstrated,

(4) penile circumference is not a measure of sexual preference or sexual orientation,

(5) and no subjects reported a change in sexual orientation.

And one important thing to point out about McBride’s study that is almost always overlooked: the primary question he examined was whether the type of stimuli — slides depicting nude/clothed men or women — resulted in different therapeutic outcomes. And guess what he found out?

“Our data did not support the popular notion that the male homosexual is more positively attracted to nude stimuli as opposed to clothed. The present study’s results indicate that homosexual attraction to members of the same sex is more general and not restricted to male nudity.” (And then he went on to mention that they did get better therapeutic results when nude stimuli were used).

So… All this research and effort later, he made an important discovery: gay men aren’t just attracted to naked men, they’re also attracted to clothed men. It seems like a silly discovery now, but I guess it was revolutionary in 1976.

But let’s get back to the parenthetic statement above: part of the reason he conducted his research was to back up the use of nude stimuli. Think about the context. BYU clinicians showing… porn… to BYU students…? And that’s what the study was really about. Finding data to support the use of nude images in aversion therapy:

“Because the therapist will have a scientific rational for utilizing nude stimuli it will help solve the moral and ethical question regrind the use of potentially ‘offensive’ material. Such considerations should be particularly important at religious and privately endowed institutions where the use of nude VCS has been challenged on the grounds that it is offensive and not therapeutically warranted.”

So, a few questions I’d like to raise:

Given less aversive procedures like fading were cited (and used and found to have similar results as shock) and given the experimental question, why even use shock? (And this question is really only important to those who assert BYU owes an apology for the use of shock). Why was using nude v. clothed images a moral and ethical issue but the use of shock v. fading wasn’t?

Given the experimental question and results obtained, why do we focus the discussion on efforts to change sexual orientation and whether orientation can change?

When it comes to current research (on any topic), are we justified to expose people to pain or discomfort in an effort to justify the actions (e.g., using nude male images) of an institution?

If the study was conducted to justify the use of nude images in aversion therapy, is it possible that aversion therapy was being used outside of this one study? Was Dr. Thorne the only one doing this type of work at BYU?

Like this:

We see Mormon missionaries walking around our complex from time to time and the thought of them stopping by our places generates interesting dialogue around here. We’ll get political with ’em and tell ’em what we think about Prop 8! We’ll tell them not to mess up our chance to have legal rights in Maryland!

Well, it happened and despite all the preparations, it was a little unexpected and threw us off our political groove. And it was only slightly awkward. We don’t get many visitors, so when there’s a knock at the door it means something crazy is about to happen. Dan peeked through the peephole on the door, gasped, and opened the door. Expecting the police, I was surprised when I heard (from the other room) someone ask for Dan by name. Misha bounded for the door, so I went toward the door to snatch him up. And there they were. Missionaries.

I grabbed Misha and stepped into the other room. Mostly to keep Misha from running out the door, but also to keep Dan from hearing me laugh. They asked Dan when he stopped going to church. He replied, “When I married him” and pointed to me. (It was actually before we got married, but he just needed something to say to get them to leave).

Like this:

I really liked this interview with Joanna Brooks by Kendal Wilcox as part of the Far Between project. Wilcox asks Brooks, “What do you think it’s like to be gay and Mormon?” Brooks replies, “I can’t say for sure, but I think it must be something like this…” and goes on to explain how she felt at BYU when feminists were excommunicated. She really connected to the gay Mormon experience through her own experiences and demonstrates a keen sense of empathy and understanding. This one is worth a watch.

Facetious though it may be, there at least five kinds of Mormons: liberal-, genuine-, conservative-, orthodox-, and nazi-Mormons. Which Mormons are the real Mormon? The ones who only take the sacrament with the right hand, only bring bland and colorless Cheerios to church to calm their kids, and object to French kissing within the bounds of any marriage whether legal, lawful, or celestial.

Who are the fake Mormons? The ones who believe it’s okay to march along the side people you love and care about. In short, fake Mormons fall left of moderate (and some even have one foot on one side and the other foot on the other side).

That is, at least, how some view the world of Mormonism: you’re either blue or red, cold or hot, black or white, unworthy or worthy. And to love someone (i.e., to be related to someone) who is anything but red, hot, white, or worthy makes you a not-real Mormon. The following is a real-life example of how this ideology plays out in my life.

I’m gay. I have a partner. I was raised in the LDS Church. Members of my family attend LDS meetings, practice their faith, and worship with other Mormons. They love me. And that creates difficulty for them. This is a gray area: there are few official guidelines on how to act and what to say when someone you love is gay and “acting on it”.

There’s also an unwritten rule within Mormonism that you can’t love someone who is living “the gay lifestyle” because you might inadvertently support or condone their sin. This unwritten rule, quite often, plays out in statements made during church meetings and other places Mormons gather.

“I can’t believe Mormons would march in a gay pride parade and still consider themselves Mormon! That is so awful.”

“It’s one thing to love someone with same-sex attraction but it’s another thing to love someone who is acting on it! And it’s disgusting that Mormons would march in gay pride parades!”

What impact do these statement have on the person with a family member is gay, whom they love independent of anything they are or do? It probably creates a hostile church environment, a place that doesn’t feel safe, and a place that should be avoided. As one LDS blogger who marched in a gay pride parade stated:

“[it’s] the attacks from within that have given me more pause about continuing my membership in this gospel than anything else. Be careful with your words. You might think you are just stating how you believe, but there are times when it is truly hurtful and does not work to bring people closer to Christ, but push them further away.”

Ironically, Mormon children around the world sing I’ll Walk With You while Mormon adults chide other Mormon adults who walked with gays.

If you don’t walk as most people do,
Some people walk away from you,
But I won’t! I won’t!

If you don’t talk as most people do,
Some people talk and laugh at you,
But I won’t! I won’t!

I’ll walk with you. I’ll talk with you.That’s how I’ll show my love for you.

Jesus walked away from none.
He gave his love to ev’ryone.
So I will! I will!

Mormon stand by their message I’ll Walk with You. That’s how I’ll show my love for you. (Photo by JJ, used without permission but I’m sure he’ll forgive me…)

“as I wrote [I’ll Walk with You], I also had in mind the little children who, as they grow up, will find themselves of a sexual orientation sure to present a challenge for them in our church and our society”

What impact do these actions have on Mormons with family members who are gay? And what impact do these actions have on gays and lesbians? One Mormon who marched in Capital Pride recalls that we was accosted as he marched.

“one guy in a dark blue shirt busted through several rows of spectators and ran into the middle of our contingent, giving me and a few others HUGE hugs. With tears in his eyes cried out, ‘Oh my gosh, the Mormons are here!… I’m Mormon! I can’t believe you’re here. THANK YOU, SO MUCH.’ He just kept repeating, “‘ can’t believe it… thank you!’ as he cried softly on my shoulder”

I wrote about my experience at Capital Pride here. It was cool hearing people cheer on the Mormons screaming things like, “MORMONS! We love you!” They got a lot of attention and way more cheers and high-fives than any other group of people.

This movement of Mormons walking with people they love will continue.

Mormons plan to march in gay pride parades across the United States (and in Chile).

You wouldn’t expect that actions seemingly contrary to Mormonism are having a huge, positive impact on many. That’s irony. And you wouldn’t expect well-intended statements made by real Mormons to have such a negative impact. That’s also irony.

Neil J. Young shared an interesting history of politics and equal rights within the LDS (Mormon) Church on The Opinion Pages of The New York Times. In short, I didn’t realize Mormon leaders had taken such an active role in fighting against equality for women; many of the quotes Young shared were surprising and appalling. The purpose of this post is to add to what Young shared.

Young made a great comparison of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the current movement for equal rights for the LGBTQ community. He highlighted the experiences of Sonia Johnson working from within the Church in a grassroots effort to gain support of the ERA. Likewise, groups like Mormons Building Bridges and Mormons for Marriage Equality are making grassroots efforts to either invite LGBTQ members of the Church back to church (Mormons Building Bridges) or push for full equality (Mormons for Marriage Equality).

Something Young didn’t highlight as well are the illusions the Church creates for members of the Church. The illusions are that you are free to think what you want on socio-political issues and vote how you want to vote on those issues. Regarding the ERA, the Church stated:

Is favoring the ERA grounds for excommunication?

No. Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the proposed amendment. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work.

So exactly what does that last sentence mean? Anything they want it to mean. As Young pointed out, Johnson was excommunicate not because she supported the ERA but because she was “not in harmony with church doctrine concerning the nature of God in the manner in which He directs His church on earth”. I’ll point out the contradiction: the Church believed her support of the ERA was in opposition to the way God directs the LDS Church (women can’t receive revelation and no one should receive revelation contrary to the revelation of the Prophet). In other words, she supported the ERA because of her own personal conviction, which contrasted revelation the Prophet had received, and thus she was trying to harm the Church through her support of the ERA.

So, the Church does a wonderful job of creating the illusion that members are free to think what they want on political issues and vote how they want. After all, they’re not going to discipline you for not agreeing on political issues. They’re going to discipline you for trying to frustrate the work of the Church. The two things are very different (but not really).

Another point Young didn’t highlight is the fact that Church leaders understand the social consequences for people who speak out against them. If you speak up about opposing Church leaders on political issues, you’ve just committed social suicide. You’ll be ridiculed and stigmatized. You’ll lose the trust and good will of those in your congregations. And maybe this is why the Church is being less heavy handed when it comes to opposition of the their efforts to stomp out marriage equality: they don’t have to do the disciplining because other members of the Church will do it for them.

Young pointed to this example from Johnson. Members in her local congregation said the following:

“If you are really serious about being a Mormon you will sustain the Prophet… So far as I am concerned – you are not a ‘Mormon.’”

“If we don’t want to follow the prophet, what are we in the church for? We’d better get out.”

Few things are worse than not being considered a Mormon among your Mormon peers. Well, being called an apostate is probably worse. In Mormon theology, apostates are not only just not Mormon, they’re also an enemies to God. They didn’t even make it onto the list Five Kinds of Mormons.

Mormon Sonia Johsnon chained herself to an LDS temple to show her support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Image from NY Times.

Here are things being said by Mormons who support marriage inequality to Mormons who support marriage equality:

“…you do not espouse God principles, stop pretending you do. You are choosing to look the other way of what is said and who established marriage and why.”

“homosexuality is a sin and we have definetely never been told to endorse sin…..just a thought!”

“This debate is a waste of time for LDS folks. You either sustain the First Presidency 100%, or you don’t. If you do, and if your opinions and beliefs aren’t in perfect alignment with theirs, then you need to do whatever it takes to sustain President Monson. We’ve always been told that in the last days, it will be VERY difficult and unpopular to stand strong as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. Wake up!”

“The voice of popular opinion means nothing in matters of Christian ideals. All the inhabitants of Sodom and Gommorrha shared beliefs in the same wicked things and what happened to them? They were ALL destroyed.”

“[Jesus] would not approve of gay MARRIAGE and deep down, you[‘d] know that if you are an endowed member of the church.”

“If you truly feel that strongly that gay people should be married, I implore you to write the first presidency that the proclamation is wrong. Either you believe it or you don’t.”

I could go on, but I’m getting tired of reading this stuff. So, for the Church, what happened with the ERA in the past is similar to what’s happening with the gay rights now. The Church seems to be backing off members who disagree on political issues, probably because they understand members of the Church will keep other members of the Church in line. Arguably, this makes the Church look better — they don’t have to excommunicate as many people.

Mormons in Washington DC marched in Capital Pride to show support for marriage equality.

Another way this makes the Church look better is they don’t have to instruct members to fight against marriage equality; they now know this is the expectation. And thus is the birth of grassroots efforts to stomp out rights for the LGBTQ community. For instance, in Maryland, Mormons are gathering signatures to put marriage rights up for a vote (just like Mormons did in California with Proposition 8).

It will be interesting to see how future Mormons look back at this point in their history. Current Mormons don’t seem to care much about the Church’s history with the ERA. At least they don’t appear to get all hyped up about it. Will it be the same with marriage equality? Will they view it as a win for Jesus? Will the prophesies of orthodox Mormons be correct, namely that the Prophet is operating with divine wisdom and foresees things we normal mortals can’t see? Or will it go down in their history as another mark of shame? Share your thoughts.

Like this:

This is one of the more powerful commentaries I’ve read on what it’s like to be a Mormon for marriage equality caught in the crossfires of personal conviction, leaders of your church, and other members of your church.

I immediately think of this clip from the movie Saved (below) and this line at the end of the movie:

Mary: So everything that doesn’t fit into some stupid idea of what you think God wants you just try to hide or fix or get rid of? It’s just all too much to live up to. No one fits in one hundred percent of the time. Not even you.Pastor Skip: I know that, Mary.Dean: I know in my heart that Jesus still loves me.Mary: Why would God make us all so different if he wanted us to be the same?

Hilary Faye: Mary, turn away from Satan. Jesus, he loves you.Mary: You don’t know the first thing about love.Hilary Faye: [throws a Bible at Mary] I am FILLED with Christ’s love! You are just jealous of my success in the Lord.Mary: [Mary holds up the Bible] This is not a weapon! You idiot.